Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPIRES DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 5800874 · 1 · BURGESS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:32 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1895-06-07 — 223rd most senior of the 3097 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: OLIGARCHY DITCH (1899-10-05). Immediately behind: LAFON DITCH (1888-04-15).
Decreed rights (1)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18452.16594 | 1895-06-07 | 1900-09-24 | 0.02 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 130 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2475, 91CW0116, W0006-70, 09/24/1900.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
91CW0116 | 2 | 1946-09-14 | S |
W0006-70 | 1 | 1900-09-24 | S |
09/24/1900 | 1 | 1900-09-24 | S |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 345 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1955 | 364 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 110 | 4.0 |
| 1956 | 565 | 14th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 127 | 4.0 |
| 1957 | 131 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 22 | 3.6 |
| 1958 | 427 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 100 | 3.6 |
| 1959 | 255 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 53 | 3.7 |
| 1960 | 546 | 13th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 89 | 4.7 |
| 1961 | 429 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 55 | 4.5 |
| 1962 | 631 | 15th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 96 | 4.9 |
| 1963 | 407 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 81 | 3.9 |
| 1964 | 345 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 136 | 2.1 |
| 1965 | 211 | 5th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 42 | 3.3 |
| 1966 | 197 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 72 | 4.1 |
| 1972 | 327 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 53 | 7.8 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-7 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.033).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2970 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 16% of the irrigation seasons in 1933-2020 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.